Infantry charges don't seem to work

**Nergalsmom** · 12-13-2009, 11:45

It is with great frustration that I have read the contents of this thread. So much so that I felt it necessary to create an account simply to reply.

Let it be known to all that Europa Barbarum is the best game I ever played, and to me it doesn't really matter how charges are portrayed. However...

A lot of people in this thread seem to have a strangely misguided idea about the "ineffectiveness" of infantry charges. I know better than anyone the futility of internet discussion, so I don't seek to preach or convert, only to provide an alternate perspective.

Firstly, people who suggest doing something else than double-right clicking on the enemy to "simulate" the effects of a charge: Nifty trick, and I commend you for your ingenuety, but I think we can all agree that it would be better if we could just charge the way it's supposed to be done

And now, the main point: People who's opinion is that wearing a lot of armor, having a shield, or wielding a light weapon makes the benefits of charging near redundant. You're right about one thing: Having a heavy or two-handed weapon does increase the benefits of charging. Just grab a broom or the business end of a vaccum cleaner and charge towards the furthest wall in your hose to see what I mean. The increased reach and weight means that your running multiplies the power of the first swing. Barbarian infantry relies upon this simple fact. That's why they're armed with heavy weapons in the first place! Read the loading screen whith the description of how a celtic longsword was used for further reference.

Having a lighter weapon such as a one-handed spear or a gladius... In this case the power of your charge is highly dependent on wether you have a shield or not... and the shield is not in the way. You may have noticed that two units of similar quality (let us say, Caucausian Archers and Caucausian Spearmen) the one with shields has a higher charge bonus. This is naturally partly becase the latter is trained for close combat, and partly because they have spears instead of long daggers, but also because they have a shield. When charging with a shield and a light weapon, your goal is to barge in shield first, hopefully causing the enemy to stumble and expose himself, giving your first attack a higher chance of killing him. This is just common sense and represented in the game by a charge bonus to the first attack made. Grab a small desk and a kitchen knife, pretend you're a roman legionaire and just feel for yourself witch charge tactic seems most effective. Do this now.

About armor slowing you down... The reason you're charging in the first place is becase it's more difficult to predict the attack of an enemy running towards you than an enemy walking leisurly in your direction. Speed is not important, momentum is. Wearing armor increases your momentum, and allows you to put more power into your first swing as you do not have to be as afraid of exposing yourself to a counter-attack. These are some of the reasons why cataphracts have a high charge bonus, and I can assure you that the same principles apply to infantry.

Wethter frontal infantry charges were effective or not depended on the nature of the units in question. For example, a unit in loose formation armed with shields and axes charging a band of hoplites is pretty much doomed to fail. The benefit of their momentum is cancelled by the tight formation of the hoplites and the reach of their spears. Roman infantry can perform well both when charging and recieving charges, and units such as falxmen really must charge or counter-charge to be most effective, since they have no shields.

All of these points are very well illustrated in vanillia RTW, but for some reason don't work as well in EB. As already stated, it doesn't matter much to me as EB is such a great game anyway, but the fact remains that charges in EB are a little buggy and not always entirely realistic in effect or performance.

**Watchman** · 12-13-2009, 11:50

PROTIP: the Celtic longsword on the average was actually about the same weight as the gladius hispanicus, if not slightly *lighter*. The difference in cutting power between the two comes from a little something called "leverage"...

**antisocialmunky** · 12-13-2009, 17:54

And are swung around, and have longer reach....

**Watchman** · 12-13-2009, 18:10

Good luck delivering an effective cut with *any* sword without "swinging it around".

**antisocialmunky** · 12-13-2009, 18:19

*stab* *stab*

**Watchman** · 12-13-2009, 18:31

Cutting.

**antisocialmunky** · 12-13-2009, 18:57

If its a pointly blade, its cutting in two directions at once.

**Nergalsmom** · 12-14-2009, 12:40

Hmm... So the information given on the loading screen in question is inaccurate then? I defenitively recall reading about the weight of celtic longswords in several books and internet articles. Of course, they were also known for their superiour balance, which would have lessened the inconvenince of the additional weight. And wasn't the most common way to attack with a gladius to get in close and personal and make a thrusting attack upwards against the enemy's midsection? That's the pros and cons of those sword designs: A long, heavy blade grants additional momentum during a charge and when you have room to swing, but when the fighting becomes more crowded and desperate, the gladius or any short sword is more effective.

Oh, and

at the cut/stab minidiscussion.